Skip to main content

About your Search

20130118
20130118
STATION
MSNBC 3
MSNBCW 3
LANGUAGE
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
MSNBC
Jan 17, 2013 6:00pm PST
there was this young arkansas democratic governor bill clinton unseating an incumbent republican president. the uncomfortable part of that memory for democrats is that even though bill clinton did beat president bush in 1992 he did so with only 43% of the vote. bill clinton got 43% of the vote that year. president bush got 37% of the vote. and even though it is always a bad idea to do math on television, this one isn't that hard. if you add up 43 and 37 you do not get anywhere near 100% of the vote. what happened to the rest of the vote? the wacky thing about the 1992 election in terms of thinking about american binary red versus blue party politics is that another guy who ran that year, a third person, got almost 20% of the vote. it was ross perot, right? giant sucking sound. ross perot got a very large proportion of the vote for a third-party candidate. nearly 20%. and who knows how the votes would have been divided between bill clinton and george h.w. bush had ross perot not been in there that year. but one thing that's often forgotten about the 1992 race was that ross perot was not the
FOX News
Jan 18, 2013 1:00pm PST
made bill clinton survive that and robert downey survive his incidents. those are likable, i don't want to call them rogues, but likable but i don't think the same could apply to armstrong? >> armstrong is completely robotic. there is no charisma there. there is no like you said character. think of hugh granted or even charlie sheen. there is loveable about the train wreck you like to watch. you know, he is an interesting guy. >> neil: what makes you think that lance won't enjoy the same come back? >> people really i think view lance as someone who has really, this is about power and ego and greed. >> neil: what about the fact he had cancer, near death, won't that offset the bad stuff? >> absolutely not. he has been doing this for decades. he even said on the interview, this was a lie of mythic proportions. that he continued to perpetuate. there is no sense -- he never said he thought he was doing nothing wrong. this is what his p.r. machine was telling him. >> neil: he was doing this to move on his life and capitalize and make some money? >> i don't think it was so much about making mo
MSNBC
Jan 18, 2013 2:00pm PST
? >> it was more about the individual popularity of the one barack obama plus bill clinton. after all, it was a decisive victory, but it was a victory for the man, not necessarily the party. >> is that how you read it, john? do you see this being an obama victory as opposed to a liberal victory are or they intertwined? >> i never want to disagree too much with one of the greater politicians in american history, but i would suggest that there was a little more party there. you won a couple u.s. senate seats that they weren't supposed to win sometimes because of republican flubs. 1.4 million more people voted for democrats for the house than voted for republicans, only gerrymandering kept the house where it is. and so i think that this man has done a lot to build a broad progressive coalition, but your core question is the important one. can you hold that coalition together? >> mayor -- >> let me say this to you though, i believe that it would have been a more telling benefit for the party if it had been nancy pelosi re-emerging as the speaker of the house and if democrat governors had
MSNBC
Jan 18, 2013 3:00am PST
traditional progressive approach. as for your first question, absolutely, john. hillary clinton would, in fact, keep papering over this issue, although i do think there would at least be some kind of a bill bradley-style challenge. in 2000 al gore faced a challenge from bill bradley on his left. it wouldn't be as robust as bradley was in 2000, i don't think -- and that wasn't terribly robust in 2000, but i think there would be some nominal challenge from her left that would say, you know, democrats can't go back to sort of clinton-style politics. now, given her popularity, as you mentioned, john, across demographic and across ideological lines, i think it would be fairly minimal. there would be some kind of challenge there, i believe. >> gene, jonathan just mentioned sherrod brown's sense that, you know, they weren't going to go near entitlements because entitlements, that's who the democratic party is. that's who they are. entitlements are now 20% think of federal spending. how do the democrats, the republicans, how does this country survive economically without addressing entitlements? and b
MSNBC
Jan 18, 2013 6:00am EST
to be lofty, inspirational and unifying, if anything? >> you know, i was reading bill clinton's second inaugural where he talks about, you know, the status quo nature of government which we see today as well, that americans a americans are to turn this division the government the way it is. the petty bickering they did for big things. i think the president wants to try to talk about where he feels he can have the most impact in his second term domestically and internationally which is a huge piece, by the way. because i think his first term internationally was about coming home, was about sort of pulling america back from its projection of power. there are so many both real problems and crises but also opportunities for the president. so i think that the speech is really about where he wants to have the most impact. and i think that's how he'll be judged, and that's where people will really take notice of what he says. >> david, before you tell us who's on "meet the press" this sunday, back to the speech for just a moment. do you think there's any chance at all that the president will
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)